r be remitted, as an expression of the
sense of this high tribunal that her conviction was unjust.

This was presented in the Senate by A.A. Sargent, of California, and in
the House by William Loughridge, of Iowa, and was referred to the
judiciary committees. In May, Lyman Tremaine, from the House Judiciary
Committee, reported adversely on the petition in a lengthy document,
which incorporated a letter from District-Attorney Crowley, urging the
committee "not to degrade a just judge and applaud a criminal;" and
declaring that "Miss Anthony's trial was fair and constitutional and by
an impartial jury." (!) Mr. Tremaine's report said: "Congress can not
be converted into a national court of review for any and all criminal
convictions where it shall be alleged the judge has committed an
error." Thus did he deliberately ignore the point at issue, the refusal
of a trial by jury. It concluded by saying: "Since the discussion of
this question has arisen in the committee, the President has pardoned
Miss Anthony for the offense of which she was convicted and this seems
to furnish a conclusive reason why no further action should be taken by
the judiciary committee." (!) The learned gentleman probably referred
to the pardon of the inspectors by the President. Miss Anthony had not
asked executive clemency for herself.

Benjamin F. Butler presented an able and exhaustive minority report
which closed with the following declaration: "Therefore, because the
fine has been imposed by a court of the United States for an offense
triable by jury, without the same being submitted to the jury, and
because the court assumed to itself the right to enter a verdict
without submitting the case to the jury, and in order that the judgment
of the House of Representatives, if it concur with the judgment of the
committee, may, in the most signal and impressive form, mark its
determination to sustain in its integrity the common law right of trial
by jury, your committee recommend that the prayer of the petitioner be
granted."

In June George F. Edmunds made an adverse report from the Senate
Judiciary Committee in this remarkable language: "That they are not
satisfied that the ruling of the judge was precisely as represented in
the petition, and that if it were so, the Senate could not legally take
any action in the premises, and they move that the committee be
discharged from the further consideration of the petition, and that the
bill be postpone